Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
having u.s. ambassadors killed in the future. that's it. >> okay. >>> coming up, warren buffett will be here onset. also senate majority whip dick durban. jake tapper and celebrity chef tom colicchio. >> those are all great. but now, unfortunately, we've got to wait for our good guests to come on. >> we're going to lose everyone. >> up next, jim vandehei joins us here onset. >> the clicking of channel changers across america. jim, we love you! come over here! >> bill karins -- oh, no, speaking of -- >> what? >> we call him c.g. for -- >> no, we don't. >> c.g., what do we got? >> now i've got to think of something creative for what c.g. stands for. snow is falling in a few areas this morning, we're looking at new jersey, looks like the suburbs outside philadelphia and new york could see snow. getting ready to treat a lot of those roads. a lot of that eco friendly rock salt. let's show you what's happening on the radar, the pink is where it's a little bit of a mix and the green is the rain. we've set up the boundary line somewhere north of philadelphia and just north of new york c
, raising the marginal tax rate on the top end is spur purely a symbolic t. and the reason warren buffett is able to say, well, my secretary is taxed at a higher rate than i am is not because of that rate, it's because of the capital gains rate at 15%. >> we need to ask him about that, too. and i'm sure he would agree capital gains rates, which were about 28% under bill clinton when we had the roaring '90s, are at 15% right now. i've got to say, this is one of those areas where, when i was in congress, i wanted the capital gains rate to go down, thought it was too high at 28%. it's at 15% now. if you want to look at income disparity, you know, in part, the 15% capital gains tax rate and carried interest allows the super wealthy to get by paying a hell of a lot less than middle-class americans. >> if you're for fairness, that's where the fairness is. that's why the rich don't pay as much tax as the others. the marginal tax rate is marginal. if you raise it a couple of percentage points, it doesn't change much. if you raise that capital gains rate, that's where the big money is made. >> he
is that revenue going to come from? >> increasing tax rates is going to harm economic growth. >> warren buffett was out this morning talking about tacking the wealthy. >> time to make the tax rates more progressive. >> that's just silly. >> grover norquist, he wanted ground government in the bathtub. i hope he slips in there with it. >> medicaid, social security. >> this is not part of the conversation. we're not going to raid social security. just another fight in washington. >> there's going to be blood and hair and eyeballs all over the floor. >> i'm more positive than most. >> if not, we go off the supposed cliff. >> the fiscal cliff or slope. the bump of various height. >>> thelma and louise might need to make room in the car for the president of the united states. at the white house today, senior obama administration officials met with liberal leaders and union officials. "the washington post" reports that one told him after the meeting, quote, would the white house go off the cliff if it's between that and compromising their core principles? i was left with the impression that they would
estimates. warren buffett said 15.5% yesterday is coming in as revenue. i have heard lower figures. that is the reality of what has happened. we have seen a decline in tax revenue and an increase in spending for a variety of reasons. if we are serious about deficit reduction, we have got to move back the golden 19.6%. abouttalk for a minute what has happened. the chairman of the appropriation committee. let's take a look at where the art today compared to where we were in fiscal year 2001 when the federal government ran a $128 billion surplus. compared to the 2001 figure, we are spending less on non- security concessionary spending than we were. the growth in spending has not been in the non-defense discretionary. the cost of security programs in that same time period has gone up 60%. the cost of mandatory programs is up 30%. i want to call your attention to one aspect progressives need to remind people. of the $1.50 trillion already in spending cuts, $900 billion comes from spending. we have given far more than when it comes to defense side. let's talk about those for a minute. th
could reach in the middle. i think that's a huge concern. in fact, this morning we spoke with warren buffett about this very issue. he thinks there's a real chance we will get some sort of a deal but maybe not necessarily by december 31st. he thinks the middle of the party could work out a deal. they will go kicking and screaming and if the leadership feels they will lose their leadership position, that could make them drag their heels as well and not get a deal as quickly. if we go over december 31st, we'll see what happens with the markets at that point. >> dow 8,000. becky quick, sorry. thank you. >> reporter: thank you. >> up next, are republicans and conservatives on the verge of a breakup? >>> the republican party needs conservatives but do conservatives need the republican party? today we're taking a deep dive into where the two overlap and where they don't. go back to this past spring, just a month or so after mitt romney secured the nomination. author and veteran craig shirley wrote something that caught a lot of our eyes saying the party itself had about become nothing more
, warren buffett said 16.5% and it is coming in as revenue and i have heard lower. spending, it is somewhere on the range of 22%-24%. to me, that is the reality of what is happening. a decline in revenue and an increase in spending for a variety of reasons we could go through. if we're serious about deficit reduction, we often -- we have to move back. the closer we can get to an 18% level as we bring down spending, the more likely we are to have a stable economy in the years ahead. let's talk about what has happened since the time when we did have our budget in balance. the chairman of the appropriations committee of dates the figures from time to time, but let's take a look at where we are today compared to where we were in fiscal year 2001 when the government actually ran a $128 billion surplus. compared to this figure, we are spending less on non-security discretionary spending than we were then. in other words, the growth in spending has not been in the non-defense discretionary accounts. second, the cost of security programs in that same time income since we were last i
cut down the economy. our friend, not warren buffett but the other guy. a great conversation, ralph nader has been by. years ago -- >> what did he learn from his -- >> did me a favor of not bothering me with his problems which was great that spin too much time trying to make money. >> a useful friends with him? >> i never said anything about him. >> as we go, you have an unusual hobby. you, something unusual. >> i have a collection of backers. also have a collection of airsickness bags. one thing i do ask people who come to the meeting, very helpful if you are traveling, you have an airsickness bag which the free present government afghanistan air sickness bag, so it is a great collection and somebody mentioned years ago in a profile starting in an e-mail, this is -- and odd quirky thing i did. >> what is the mood at the meeting going to be? >> people are very optimistic. people were disappointed because we didn't have the house senate president and then people thought we were going to get the president in the senate and stock didn't go up. we elected a house stronger than the last
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)